Good find Garfield. Wikipedia has been well known for biased editing. Some colleges have banned its use from being cited in essays and reports. It doesn't surprise me that this has happend. It was only a mater of time. Nice find.

Good find Garfield. Wikipedia has been well known for biased editing. Some colleges have banned its use from being cited in essays and reports. It doesn't surprise me that this has happend. It was only a mater of time. Nice find.

Thank you, it wasn't hard considering it was on page one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El

We should go in an tweak the article ourselves.

It is much more entertaining to watch the back and forth as the staff of wikipedia tries to explain themselves.

Quite frankly wikipedia is by definition a biased source. To think otherwise is simply cutting your own argument to shreds. It is banned from many schools because every single entry, regardless of sources, is a biased entry and not all of them are even remotely correct.

Personally, I would like to see the entry in question before I give judgment. The person was banned for "point of view junk", which -could- have meant he did in fact enter something that was biased junk, whether that be liberal or conservative junk.

Fact is a lot of the Ayer/Obama stuff is speculation, and if the person did post speculation and presented it as fact then it he deserved to be banned. For all we know, he posted some bull and then sourced blogs.

Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.

And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.

Fact is a lot of the Ayer/Obama stuff is speculation, and if the person did post speculation and presented it as fact then it he deserved to be banned. For all we know, he posted some bull and then sourced blogs.

Obama's connection with Ayers is fact; however, the type of relationship they had is based upon speculation. I'm awed at how many people take Wikipedia as the god given truth.

A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

An internet site being biased?! Call the news stands jim! We have a story for a slow day!

Please. If you have a problem with a forum being biased, go to another forum. If you have a problem with a news organization being biased, watch another one. If you don't like your soup, ask for a different bowl.

There, your own personal heaven. Because the beauty of the internet is there is actually no requirement for unbiased websites. You have the fee right to post anything anywhere under the rules of the website. Why? Because someone owns that website and on the internet, they make the rules unless it breaks some international law like child porn.

Homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual groups spend tens of millions of dollars every year to market and normalize their aberrant lifestyles, yet after all these years there is not a single, serious national group dedicated specifically to exposing and countering their agendas...

Okay I really don't think that is a solution either, because quite frankly it makes it look like Ann Coulter is a liberal based on what I'm seeing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

That's right; Combat bias with even more bias. For example:

Which is why I probably wouldn't use them as a source without some other sources to back it up. It's also why I usually check newsbuster links for other sources before I post stories from newsbusters. I generally trust newsbusters but I still like to verify things.

Which is why I probably wouldn't use them as a source without some other sources to back it up. It's also why I usually check newsbuster links for other sources before I post stories from newsbusters. I generally trust newsbusters but I still like to verify things.

Alright, but if you apply the same logic toward Newsbusters, then how do you know that it's 100% accurate?

Alright, but if you apply the same logic toward Newsbusters, then how do you know that it's 100% accurate?

Newsbusters tends to be accurate because they take the time to actually source things often the very things they are reporting about. It's also why some bloggers such as littlegreenfootballs and Drudge Report are more credible than some other blog sites.

Fact is though in this wikipedia situation, there is quite a bit of evidence to prove the wikipedia staff have been behaving in an unethical manner.

Newsbusters tends to be accurate because they take the time to actually source things often the very things they are reporting about. It's also why some bloggers such as littlegreenfootballs and Drudge Report are more credible than some other blog sites.

How do you know that? People can forge almost anything and report it as the truth, especially on the Internets. How do you know that they aren't just making stuff up?

Few people that take academia serious consider Wikipedia an a priori truth, god-given or otherwise.

I personally find WP useful for my blog, where I'll link to things that offer general concepts to readers (like "Last Glacial Maxmimum" or "Human Evolution"). WP is useful for getting a quick general concept and to locate secondary sources which cite primary. I would never cite Wikipedia unless I were using a Creative Commons photo or graphic -nor would I recommend anyone cite Wikipedia since its a tertiary source. Primary and secondary sources are preferable in any research or academic writings.

As far as the Wikipedia entry on Obama, looking at the Talk Page, there seems to be a consensus that there needs to be something written on the Obama/Ayers connection, but they're hashing out precisely how to word it. The problem they're faced with is constant vandalism by extremists that oppose Obama at the cost of logic and rational discourse and fringe media like Fox and WorldNut Daily will exploit the curtailment and moderation of such extremists to their own ends.

In the end, there was a connection between Obama and Ayers and it did, indeed, cause a stir so it should be covered by WP. I'm betting it will be soon, but in the mean time there's no reason why they should simply permit wholesale vandalism of the page by left and right wing extremists who battle back and forth over the issue.

There doesn't seem to be, however, any support for the OP which alleges with much hyperbole that "Wikipedia is rewriting history."

There is no requirement for them to act "ethically" by your standards.

Well actually there is, it adds to the growing concern about the mainstream media being ran by Obama's Chief of Staff. Additionally, if wikipedia is a nonprofit they can get in serious trouble from a legal standpoint, furthermore they could potentially get in trouble for false advertising.

Seriously, they advertise as trying their best to keep it unbiased, but they deliberately do things to support the Democrats, that's false advertising. Furthermore, they've also lost credibility to many people.

Well actually there is, it adds to the growing concern about the mainstream media being ran by Obama's Chief of Staff. Additionally, if wikipedia is a nonprofit they can get in serious trouble from a legal standpoint, furthermore they could potentially get in trouble for false advertising.

No, they cannot get in trouble. There are no laws requiring you to be unbiased online.

And no, they are not falsely advertising because they are not selling anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Seriously, they advertise as trying their best to keep it unbiased, but they deliberately do things to support the Democrats, that's false advertising. Furthermore, they've also lost credibility to many people.

What people? How many people honestly take wikipedia as pure fact?

That seems like a problem with the ignorance of the people instead of the bias of wikipedia. You aren't helping, however, by pinning this solely on democrats.

Again, it is not their ethical, moral, political, etc responsibility to be unbiased. Wikipedia is by definition a biased source and should be treated as such.

Well actually there is, it adds to the growing concern about the mainstream media being ran by Obama's Chief of Staff. Additionally, if wikipedia is a nonprofit they can get in serious trouble from a legal standpoint, furthermore they could potentially get in trouble for false advertising.

Okay.

Quote:

Seriously, they advertise as trying their best to keep it unbiased, but they deliberately do things to support the Democrats, that's false advertising. Furthermore, they've also lost credibility to many people.

I guess you can apply the same logic with Fox News' slogan of "Fair and Balanced", right?

I guess you can apply the same logic with Fox News' slogan of "Fair and Balanced", right?

Depends, compared to a lot of the other news organizations you can take it two ways.

They are the most fair and balanced network on Television

They balance out the liberal leaning networks

Fact, is Hillary Clinton even claimed that Fox News was the most balanced news network of the bunch.

Anyways, Fox News is a for profit, and they can argue that they are referring to their news segments and not the commentators, their news segments are actually rather balanced.

The other issue here is that wikipedia is actively deleting any mention of things that are politically embarassing for Obama despite the fact they are true, and Fox News made no such effort on their site.

Fact, is Hillary Clinton even claimed that Fox News was the most balanced news network of the bunch.

surveys show 9/10 americans care about what Hillary Clinton says.

Now, what do you expect from a website that is able to be openly edited by anybody with an internet connection and half a brain? Of course there are going to be people who will edit these articles to fit how they think. Liberal, Conservative, and otherwise.

Now, what do you expect from a website that is able to be openly edited by anybody with an internet connection and half a brain? Of course there are going to be people who will edit these articles to fit how they think. Liberal, Conservative, and otherwise.

If it were just a back and forth between people editting articles that would be one thing but this involves the wikipedia administrative staff, which isn't just any random passerby.

If it were just a back and forth between people editting articles that would be one thing but this involves the wikipedia administrative staff, which isn't just any random passerby.

Admins are still real people. And real people are still biased.

And after reading through that article again, I saw that the only thing the admins did was ban the guy for 3 days and deleting the article. Since it was only up for '2 minutes', I doubt many people know exactly what he put on the article. Although that picture might help. Albeit a little.

And after reading through that article again, I saw that the only thing the admins did was ban the guy for 3 days and deleting the article. Since it was only up for '2 minutes', I doubt many people know exactly what he put on the article. Although that picture might help. Albeit a little.

Now, what do you expect from a website that is able to be openly edited by anybody with an internet connection and half a brain? Of course there are going to be people who will edit these articles to fit how they think. Liberal, Conservative, and otherwise.

Well, It's not really that 'black and white'. Most of the articles I've read on Wikipedia (and trust me, I've read quite a lot) are extremely neutral.

I never bash Wikipedia for this reason, the "anyone can edit" policy is an overly simplified explanation of how the website actually works, you can't just edit any article to your pleasing and not have it reverted to It's original form if you don't use proper citations and sources.

Technically, anyone can edit the article on John McCain and replace everything with "McCain ****ing sucks" -- but that doesn't mean the article stays that way. It gets reverted back to it's original form within minutes.

Quite frankly wikipedia is by definition a biased source. To think otherwise is simply cutting your own argument to shreds. It is banned from many schools because every single entry, regardless of sources, is a biased entry and not all of them are even remotely correct.

Hahaaa. Yup. Not to mention the humiliation you suffer in serious circles of higher education. It may be nice as a general idea/direction pointer...but not as any real source.

Quote:

Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.

And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.

Which most people don't even care enough to try to find and just simply accept it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Few people that take academia serious consider Wikipedia an a priori truth, god-given or otherwise.

Like for example: how for the longest time in laser history it talks about Theodore Maiman and Charles Hard Townes for "inventing" the laser. True, they did build the very first one to work, however Gordon Gould is the one who coined the term LASER based off of prior research of its microwave predecessor the MASER. Later in 1977 courts ruled in Gould's favor. This was not acknowledged at first by anyone. In fact, I still do not see it sometimes when checking academic sources.

Quote:

I would never cite Wikipedia unless I were using a Creative Commons photo or graphic -nor would I recommend anyone cite Wikipedia since its a tertiary source. Primary and secondary sources are preferable in any research or academic writings.

Most prof.'s I've ever met, regarding research, say it is okay for creative commons or as a "pointer". Just not as a legit source.

Quote:

There doesn't seem to be, however, any support for the OP which alleges with much hyperbole that "Wikipedia is rewriting history."

Maybe not on the premise of people that know better like us, regardless of political leanings. To those who don't know better, it could be until those naive enough to believe it at first see the light about wikipedia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

What people? How many people honestly take wikipedia as pure fact?

That seems like a problem with the ignorance of the people instead of the bias of wikipedia. You aren't helping, however, by pinning this solely on democrats.

Again, it is not their ethical, moral, political, etc responsibility to be unbiased. Wikipedia is by definition a biased source and should be treated as such.

Maybe what Garfield is getting at is the disturbing level of influence upon the young and impressionable who may indefinitely remain such until learning better.

@ Garf: I'd agree at least that it would be tragic if this inherently and unreasonably biased source were to be acceptible. While I cannot really say it is rewriting history yet, I can say that if it ever became acceptable as passably legit, that it would be a major step in that direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriggerGod

Admins are still real people. And real people are still biased.

Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pho3nix

Well, It's not really that 'black and white'. Most of the articles I've read on Wikipedia (and trust me, I've read quite a lot) are extremely neutral.

I never bash Wikipedia for this reason, the "anyone can edit" policy is an overly simplified explanation of how the website actually works, you can't just edit any article to your pleasing and not have it reverted to It's original form if you don't use proper citations and sources.

Just a slight clarification/correction: THAT is a recently incorporated change to its standard operating procedures from how it used to be. While it is better than it used to be, it still has a loooooong way to go.

I remember seeing some very slanderous offensive stuff completely out of place on the article about Kasumi from DOA...it was a simple matter to enter as a guest and remove it and neaten up the article back then.

Can't do that now. I bet the change made by a guest from a public computer probably is still recorded on the archive from some time back in 2004-2006.

We'll murder them all, amid laughter and merriment...except for the few we take home to experiment!

Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.

And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.

Well to correct you, Fox News is a lot more legitimate than most media outlets these days (and a heck of a lot better at sourcing things), which is a seperate topic:

I don't want to hijack this or anything, but someone please, please, please tell me that that Conservapedia site is a joke. Please!

As for the wikipedia issue. It's not a matter of big importance to me. I mean sure it's a little odd and if it is the staff removing the information(which is supposedly true information) then it is unprofessional. But it is their site and they are allowed to do with it what they like.

And, I don't want to be mean or flame you like "everyone else" but could you try and include links to news sources other than Fox?

Well considering they want to have Obama's babies and have spouses working in the Obama administration, that's a pretty blatent conflict of interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikinor

I don't want to hijack this or anything, but someone please, please, please tell me that that Conservapedia site is a joke. Please!

I have no clue, I hadn't heard of them till today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikinor

As for the wikipedia issue. It's not a matter of big importance to me. I mean sure it's a little odd and if it is the staff removing the information(which is supposedly true information) then it is unprofessional. But it is their site and they are allowed to do with it what they like.

They are supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a propaganda pulpit for the DNC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikinor

And, I don't want to be mean or flame you like "everyone else" but could you try and include links to news sources other than Fox?

Because the "mainstream media" is refusing to cover anything that makes the 'annointed one' look bad. Furthermore, a lot of the reporters in the mainstream media want to have Obama's babies. Last but not least, as I pointed out in another thread many reporters have spouses that work for the Obama Administration which is another conflict of interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

With whom exactly?

So let me get this straight you consider attacking a child of a candidate that happens to be a toddler to be remotely legitimate?

You posted an article about a journalist complimenting Michelle Obama, not the President. Michelle has nothing to do with the government, and simply has the title of first lady. What do you expect them to do? Mock her? Just because they compliment his wife doesn't mean they want to get in bed with either of them.

Good job pulling a bull example out of the air to present a bull argument, not only missing the message of the article but completely mixing up who they were talking about.

I honestly thought you had pulled up some little article about a journalist who had a crush on Obama. What I find is a blog page by one of CNN's journalist complimenting his WIFE on her style, grace, etc. I seriously can't believe how low you will go to skew facts.

I suggest you don't mention this baseless red herring again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Have they been critical of people, yes? Have they targetted children of political candidates that are under 2 years of age, no. That would be MSNBC.

Not attacking children doesn't save them from the blatant bias and attacks the have done over the years themselves. I seem to remember them calling out Obama on not being an American Citizen and cheating his way in?

Fox is as low as MSNBC is. They just happen to be on different ladders on their way down.

I also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.

I'm talking about reporters admitting and swooning that they want to sleep with Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Good job pulling a bull example out of the air to present a bull argument, not only missing the message of the article but completely mixing up who they were talking about.

I can tell you didn't read what all I posted:

Quote:

The newly named head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, is married to New York Times reporter Jason DeParle. The marriage was mentioned in the Times article on Mrs. DeParle’s appointment, but will the editor or the Public Editor of the Times explain how they’ll avoid a conflict?

Time magazine saluted Mrs. DeParle’s resume, including running Medicare at the end of the Clinton administration, but like the Times, they were more concerned with her private-sector conflicts: "Since then she has become a highly sought-after corporate, academic and foundation consultant, earning enough money with her husband, New York Times reporter Jason DeParle, to buy a $3 million house in the Washington suburbs in 2007."

This theme emerged earlier: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice is married to Ian Cameron, who was named last fall to be the executive producer of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It might seem obvious that ABC’s less interested in the appearance problems of any conflicts, with Stephanopoulos the Clinton operative as its top political analyst (and a Cuomo as a news anchor).

Thanks for pointing out the thing on Michelle, I had forgotten about her being swooned over too. And before you try to smear Newsbusters as usual, the article actually sources the news agencies they are accusing of conflict of interest. If you'll note I said "crush on the Obamas," or are you saying Michelle isn't married to Barack?

Because it shows your sources have no credibility at all it's a red herring... You have a strange definition of what a red herring is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Not attacking children doesn't save them from the blatant bias and attacks the have done over the years themselves. I seem to remember them calling out Obama on not being an American Citizen and cheating his way in?

Sean Hannity pointed out Obama's ties to ACORN which is well-known for voter fraud, but the not being an American Citizen garbage was from the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the only thing Fox News brought up about it was that it wasn't the Republicans that came up with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Fox is as low as MSNBC is. They just happen to be on different ladders on their way down.

Oh so now you finally, admit MSNBC isn't a credible source, okay so next I'm going to have to find enough sourcing and stuff that maybe you'll also admit Fox News is a credible source. Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.

Well you know someone got sued for making a phony video and releasing it to try to make it look like John Gibson from Fox News was a racist? That kind of smear campaign is relatively common by the left, but the reason this resulted in a lawsuit is because it was a reporter from an MSNBC subsidiary.

I'm talking about reporters admitting and swooning that they want to sleep with Obama.

Well, who wouldn't swoon over his glistening pectorals? I somehow suspect that Mrs. Obama would kick some butt if anyone tried to get close to sleeping with him.

Wikipedia is a good starting point for finding real history sources, but as far as legitimate history, it's a tertiary source at best and should not be relied on as anything other than that for any historical topic. As long as the Obama wiki entry is subject to editing, it's going to be suspect because people can do malicious edits and comments from both liberal and conservative sources. Wiki has never been a good historical source for anything, even if it's useful for some facts and basic information, so I'm not sure what all the excitement is that the entry changes.

Edit: Sorry Skinwalker--didn't see that you'd posted essentially the same thing.

From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"